Pink Narcissus (1971)

A Brilliant Conflict

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Totally plot less movie of the homo erotic images of some hot young guy. I caught this years ago at an art cinema as part of their gay and lesbian film festival. It's safe to say the entire audience consisted of gay men. When it started there was silence...which mostly continued throughout the movie. Some people walked out and there was scattered laughter during some of the sillier scenes. The color was bright (and blinding) and the print we had was in good shape but with no plot or point (that I could see of) this quickly became boring. The guy in it was handsome and hot (and nude some of the time) but that wasn't enough to keep me interested for 90 minutes. Maybe back in 1971 this was considered erotic and shocking but it sure isn't today (although it would still get an NC-17). Pretentious, pointless and overdone. It gets a 6 for some truly striking and beautiful images but I can't recommend it. When it was over at the art cinema most of the guys left complaining how stupid and boring it was. That should tell you something.

I don't know why the rating for this is so low -- well, that's not true, I do know: it's arty, it's got no dialogue (we have radio weather forecasts in lieu of that), it's in grainy pink, and it doesn't have a story. But it is a successful glimpse into a gay dream, and a successful passing on of that experience -- and the title character, a wonderfully objectified youth, is the perfect gay ideal: pouty lips, messy brown hair, dark features, a fantastic and well-exploited rear, and a sculpted body. And he's unclothed for most of it, a Caravaggio boy.The film is a good example of ingenuity on the director's part -- it's a small-scale melodrama not unlike those of Guy Maddin, if Maddin was more lushly sensual and less manically comic. It's not a porno, but it is extreme gayness, and the mere essence of that is enough for some people to get it up. But regardless, it is very erotic; a number of scenes (stripping the boy's undies off, sucking his own fingers, slowly humping the ground in nature) push the right buttons. There are some inventive scenes, like the boy getting a beejay from a leather man swimming in a milky liquid (and then after that a urinal-fetish scene). I haven't seen "Un chant d'amour," so I don't know the degree to which this is influenced by Genet, but it does have its parallels to the Genet-inspired third of "Poison." 9/10

Think Disney's Fantasia, only not a cartoon, less of a plot, and of course lots of hues of pink. I don't have to worry about spoilers, because I can't thing of an actual plot point one might spoil. Is there a rule that gay films must be pretentious and dull? If so, this film fits the bill. Yes there are moments of male nudity, but if you're looking for that there are far better options. Could only recommend this to someone looking strictly for an 'art film' based on meticulously planned visuals and constant repetitive music.

Possibly the most artistic movie I have ever seen. Beautiful Bobby Kendall (where is this guy now??) in a series of self-indulgent fantasies. The 'narcissus' theme carries to the end. And who could blame the guy? An arousing, provoking short film full of sexual, and more importantly, sensual scenes. Not quite hard-core gay, but right up there. Better. Filled with elements which porn lacks - beauty, art and eroticism. The viewer is treated to plenty of teasing shots, where things are actually left to the imagination. Colorful, magical, erotic. Recommended to anyone who wants to view a hot gay film which also asks things of you artistically.